Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 9/16/2009 1:25:05 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/16/2009 1:25:59 PM EST by MaverickH1]
Let's take for example the president of the United States, Barack Obama. He believes health care is a right. Tonight while I was making my dinner, I was pondering the idea of health care being a right. If I was able to interview Obama I would ask:


Me: Gun ownership, a right or a privilege?

Obama: It is a right, with certain common sense restrictions. Yadda, yadda, yadda...

Me: Health care, a right or a privilege?

Obama: A right.

Me: The government should find a way to make sure everyone has health care because it is a right?

Obama: Correct.

Me: Will you buy me a gun?


And that will leave him stumbling as to how to justify how the two are different. Unless he wants to buy me a gun... in which case I may have to change my tactics.
Link Posted: 9/16/2009 6:35:31 PM EST
would illegals get guns too?
Link Posted: 9/16/2009 8:25:03 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/16/2009 8:25:38 PM EST by Socoleo]
A Right requires no obligation on another's part. I can speak freely, own a gun, etc., without creating an encumberance on another individual. No one has to supply the arms, the stage, the PA system,etc.

The "Right" to health care requires that someone be forced to supply it. It is simple, de facto, slavery. A right cannot create an obligation on another's part.
Link Posted: 9/16/2009 8:33:23 PM EST
Originally Posted By Socoleo:
A Right requires no obligation on another's part. I can speak freely, own a gun, etc., without creating an encumberance on another individual. No one has to supply the arms, the stage, the PA system,etc.

The "Right" to health care requires that someone be forced to supply it. It is simple, de facto, slavery. A right cannot create an obligation on another's part.


Hence why the questioning would have to make him backpedal. Preferably in front of a large audience.
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 5:00:01 AM EST
Considering health care a right implies that you have a right to someones labor. The last time I checked you do not have a right to enslave someone.
Link Posted: 9/20/2009 2:10:19 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/20/2009 2:14:53 PM EST by crux]
While it has been correctly stated that positive rights are problematic because they require that someone be obligated to provide the right (such as a right to housing), it's useful to understand where the reasoning comes from in the first place.

It goes something like this:
{welfare lib speak}
A person who for whatever reason has poor access to resources such as health care, food, shelter and education is unable to develop to as great a potential as they might had they access to these things. If they are not able to develop their potential, isn't that a cost to society? Isn't it in society's best interest to provide some of these basic needs to strengthen it's members thus improving their ability to contribute value? Is a person who can't read really free, or are they dependant upon others and therefore lacking in the individual autonomy possessed by someone who can read?
{/welfare lib speak}

It gets even more emotional from there. The key is to respond with logic and not emotion. The key difference between modern liberalism and classical American liberalism is that people are free to give and receive charity in the classical view, and it is in this context that such persons can and should receive aid. In modern liberalism (since the early 20th century actually) the general agreement is that persons who have done well have the obligation to help those "behind' them in the walk of life. Reference Obama's quote to Joe the Plubmer "I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance at success, too". He views it neccessary (a right and an obligation of the state) to consume some of Joe's value to enrich those who have not yet developed to Joe's potential.

All of this requries a non-individualist view of humanity which holds that society is something that exists unto itself, and has a responsibility and a right to redistribute resources as part of an effort to maximize the society's capability. This is a viewpoint that goes way back into history but aside from Marxism, has it's strongest expressions in American under the "progressive" movement (which often has so much in common with Marx as to be indestinguishable, but does has it's own variations).

This is absolutely contrary to the individualist perspective which says that what a person becomes is primarily the responsibility of that person, and the persons who voluntarily have charge over them (parents or charities for example). If you don't have access to a fully funded college education, it's up to you to learn something with which to provide value to others for trade, and no one has a right to lay claim to the labor and goods of others for their own enrichment.

That issue is really the largest dividing line in American politics today, and a major issue in some of the gravest concerns for our Country. The commitments of the people's wealth for such "enrichment" of society continues to contribute to an enormous public debt pool, and future commitments threatening the financial viability of the nation. All too often the benefits society receives from such "enrichment" is marginal to non-existent and serve to create an ever larger hand held out for additional contributions from the public treasury. Likewise the freedom of charity is gobbled up as the society makes commitments of people's charity on it's own behalf.

Brining people back to the view that taking from others for your own enrichment or the enrichment of another is stealing is the key. It's one thing to spend on roads and the military that we all benefit from, but to spend to enrich a subset of individuals with sometimes questionable needs and outcomes including the potential degredation of their work ethic is immoral and is bankrupting this nation.
Top Top